John Murtha, fresh from a fact-finding trip to Afghanistan, said in a Politico interview he is unable to find a clear answer on what is an “achievable victory.” He said that he is “still very nervous about this whole thing” and that “if you had 10 years, it might work; if you had five, you could make a difference. But you don't have that long.”

Murtha spoke to congressional reporting dean David Rogers on the eve of President Obama's Af-Pak address.

Murtha, like so many, appears to be wrestling with the litany of imperfect options. A Pennsylvania Democrat, Murtha chairs the House subcommittee that writes the defense budget. He has long held a weighty voice on national security matters and, as Rogers notes, is a close ally of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. He was the first Vietnam War veteran elected to the House (Murtha began his military career as a young Marine in the Korean War).

Murtha voted for the Iraq War authorization. But by late 2005, Murtha came to believe the war in Iraq could not be won militarily. He has not reached the same conclusion with Afghanistan. But in his words to Rogers, one senses Murtha's ambivalence:

All these generals understand it can't be won militarily. The more people you kill, the more enemies you make.

On Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top US commander in Afghanistan, Murtha said:

He's trying to switch from killing people to winning their hearts and minds. It's almost as simple as that. He laid it out. He gave the best explanation he could of how it would work if you have the time, but I don't think he has the time.